|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Total Recall is more of a love letter to great 80s movies. it catches me off guard every time I remember that Total Recall came out in 1990. Kinda feels like the last big '80s Action Movie, with Point Break and Speed really ushering in the '90s proper (Terminator 2 also, but that's a sequel to an '80s movie so it kinda doesn't count). edit: huh, Speed was '94, I coulda sworn I had it pegged as '92. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Dec 21, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:it catches me off guard every time I remember that Total Recall came out in 1990. Kinda feels like the last big '80s Action Movie, with Point Break and Speed really ushering in the '90s proper (Terminator 2 also, but that's a sequel to an '80s movie so it kinda doesn't count). It really is the last of that breed, actually. Like a grand send-off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
The last '80s action movie is clearly Dolph Lundgren's magnum opus Showdown in Little Tokyo from 1991.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Robocop is way more relevant now than it was in 87. robocop was made when crime was nearing its all time high (1991).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:robocop was made when crime was nearing its all time high (1991). Robocop 2014 was made when corporatization and militarization of the police was at it's all time high. Robocop 87 was not about crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Robocop was prescient, and is relevant. In the time between the original and remake, we hadn't outsourced police departments, but we had outsourced correctional facilities. We've witnessed big banks screw the little guy and make out like bandits with a bailout (when has that ever changed), and seen the steady erosion of individual liberty in the name of security.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:robocop was made when crime was nearing its all time high (1991). Ummm... Like, currently, the infrastructure of Detroit is literally falling out the bottom. They can't fund a proper police force, 'stand-your-ground' themed armed militias are popping up all over, the murder rate is ten times the national average, and the poverty rate nearly three times the national average. 'Innovation industry' corporations and venture capitalists are circling the hollowed out housing market and industrial carcass like vultures, waiting for public institutions to die so they can sweep in and make a killing off of for-profit solutions. Libraries are selling public art to for-profit museums in Texas. And Donald is president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
and violent crime has been dropping nationally every year since 1991. which is what he said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Which goes to show that "crime" is not the problem Verhoeven was concerned with, and furthermore a vast array of other immiserating issues have come to the fore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:My whole thing is divorcing art and commerce so I know I have a fringe opinion, but if you think turning Blade Runner into the Marvelverse won't cheapen the original movie (get used to saying that instead of just 'Blade Runner') you're kidding yourself. If this upcoming sequel takes off and they keep making more you're basically aborting a handful of original movies that could have been made if you factor in an intensifying marketing budget. are you loving retarded like seriously
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
I still want the new "old Conan" movie that's been long rumored, the original is so loving good that I usually forget there was a remake. What other movies have been remade this decade? Red Dawn, Point Break...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:I still want the new "old Conan" movie that's been long rumored, the original is so loving good that I usually forget there was a remake. In horror films alone, in the last 10 years, the three big mid 70's and 80's horror franchises were remade: Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th. Carrie, Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, and My Bloody Valentine were also remade. Dawn of the Dead was remade slightly longer ago (2004), as was The Fog (2005), and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (2003). And that's not even counting the foreign horror films that were remade in English closely on the heels of their foreign success. Wizchine fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:I still want the new "old Conan" movie that's been long rumored, the original is so loving good that I usually forget there was a remake. Me, too. Apparently Arnold is working on getting it made, the script is supposedly done. God, CtB is loving masterful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Me, too. Apparently Arnold is working on getting it made, the script is supposedly done. Half of it is that loving score - it's brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Wizchine posted:Half of it is that loving score - it's brilliant. Agreed. Ever read this amazing essay? http://www.barbariankeep.com/ctbds.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
It's also got one of the best unintentionally funny commentaries on the planet. "Ja, dis is da part where we are running!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:This movie was pretty good though. It's a halfway competent thriller, but it wasn't a very good Robocop movie (Robocop was mercilessly franchised out from the jump, but why put out a new one after so long without anything to add that the first two didn't?). I'm confident Villeneuve will do much better than Padhila but if that means they start churning them out I'm not going to go pay to see it. Deakul posted:are you loving retarded like seriously Why are people excited for this and not see if for the cashgrab it is? Is this worth your time over the potential next Midnight Special?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:Why are people excited for this and not see if for the cashgrab it is? The original was also an attempt to grab cash. Every studio picture is. BR wasn't very successful at the outset, but I'll bet a visually stunning scifi from the Alien guy starring the Star Wars guy sounded like a golden ticket at the time. Of course directors also want to create great films within the realm of what is commercially viable. At the time it was scifi spectacles, these days sequels are the safe bet. Of course it's a cash grab. That doesn't mean it won't also be good art. Ridley ever questions why people think he tried to fight the studio recuts and narration on the commentary and in many interviews, it wasn't the case. In his own words, "It is a business. Too many people are investing their livelihoods for it not to be a business." The idea of art being separate from commerce is just incredibly precious. It was the norm for naive first year students at my art school, but it's pretty laughable to hear from anyone who should be beyond that level of awareness. Hell, it was already a joke long before people like Warhol and Hurst started having fun with it. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:The original was also an attempt to grab cash. Every studio picture is. BR wasn't very successful at the outset, but I'll bet a visually stunning scifi from the Alien guy starring the Star Wars guy sounded like a golden ticket at the time. Of course directors also want to create great films within the realm of what is commercially viable. At the time it was scifi spectacles, these days sequels are the safe bet. Of course there's risk involved, Blade Runner was historically a bad bet from a business perspective. But it lives on beyond the red line in the accounts. Chasing that magic is just a cynical move that anybody should be able to see through by now. This isn't something I'm even absolute about, I watch the Evil Dead series since its essentially the same thing, but I have to ask why are they putting this out now, unmotivated, after an eternity. The director is enough to make some hopeful, but after all the poo poo Hollywood is putting out breathlessly trying to keep their properties fresh, I'm certain this will be a Terminator Genesys more than a Terminator 2. I suppose its a dumb ideal, but it already seems like it's heading in that direction. Hollywood, the established studios, are only making a handful of titanic films, and the tide recedes further before every wave crashes. I think the future would be in crowdfunding, or at least a more professional, or mixed version. Movies have run their course for cultural dominance, and you can see only more and more niche properties are being made. If people are putting up money in advance in numbers, you can use that as a straw poll for the kind of business it will do, whether broad, niche or just a handful of freaks who like this thing toomuch. Cinemas will definitely become hobby places, like bowling alleys and karaoke bars now that streaming services come into ubiquity. That leaves basically no room for money in distribution, other than residuals coming in from those streaming services. That's just the background of my hot take, apologies for this dumb derail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:but I have to ask why are they putting this out now, unmotivated, after an eternity. They would have put out a BR sequel decades ago (there's been multiple attempts) except that the sequel rights were all tied up and it's taken this long to unravel them. Ridley Scott also tried to get a series of short prequels up and running which featured none of the established characters since he couldn't get the rights but that fell through. Apparently BR producer Bud Yorkin held onto the rights for ages but sold them on back in 2011 and the upcoming film is the result. He died last year but he'll still be getting some sort of producer credit on the new film. Also the Kurt Russell film Soldier was written by the Blade Runner co-author David Peoples and he calls it a "spin-off sidequel"-spiritual successor to Blade Runner because they're apparently both set in the same fictional universe. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:They would have put out a BR sequel decades ago (there's been multiple attempts) except that the sequel rights were all tied up and it's taken this long to unravel them. Ridley Scott also tried to get a series of short prequels up and running which featured none of the established characters since he couldn't get the rights but that fell through. Apparently BR producer Bud Yorkin held onto the rights for ages but sold them on back in 2011 and the upcoming film is the result. He died last year but he'll still be getting some sort of producer credit on the new film. See this is interesting because now the notion of making a sequel makes more sense over time rather than the inverse. quote:Also the Kurt Russell film Soldier was written by the Blade Runner co-author David Peoples and he calls it a "spin-off sidequel"-spiritual successor to Blade Runner because they're apparently both set in the same fictional universe. Get used to hearing the phrase 'Blade Runner Extended Universe'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:Get used to hearing the phrase 'Blade Runner Extended Universe'. Nerds like you are the reason people feel compelled to give us swirlies whenever we open our mouths.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
There's already one Blade Runner Extended Universe, after the movie there were three authorised novels which attempted to reconcile everything with 'Do Androids Dream Of Electronic Sheep?" and explain the 'mistakes' in the movie (6th Replicant???) and then created a huge amount of significance for random poo poo from the movie (the owl becomes super important, as does the fact that Roy Batty killed Tyrell by crushing his eyes, etc etc). Apparently some of the movie sequels that various people tried to get up and running over the years were based on those novels, thank gently caress they fell through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Next thing you know they'll ruin that beloved movie with a video game!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
As a fan of Philip K Dick's original short story , I've LONG seen Hollywood's 1982 adaptation of it a blatant cashgrab devoid of creativity and representative of the industry's inability to do anything but steal other ideas. Turning Electric Sheep into the StarWarsverse just cheapens the book when Scott should be making original movies instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
I am waiting for the Mary Poppins Extended Universe
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:Next thing you know they'll ruin that beloved movie with a video game! Unironically, they should have Telltale make a game set in the universe but unrelated to the movie(s).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:I am waiting for the Mary Poppins Extended Universe P.L. Travers died in 1996 and her estate recently gave the go ahead for Disney to finally make a sequel which will come out in 2018 and if that does well you can bet that Disney will try and spin it out further. I'm betting on Disney buying the rights to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for a crossover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
There was a Total Recall TV series that was based more on Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Sign me up for the Requiem for a Dream Extended Universe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Blade Runner is my favorite movie. I am excited to return to the setting through a different filmmaker's eyes and see what him and the team around him making the film do with the setting and themes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:See this is interesting because now the notion of making a sequel makes more sense over time rather than the inverse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:There's already one Blade Runner Extended Universe, after the movie there were three authorised novels which attempted to reconcile everything with 'Do Androids Dream Of Electronic Sheep?" and explain the 'mistakes' in the movie (6th Replicant???) and then created a huge amount of significance for random poo poo from the movie (the owl becomes super important, as does the fact that Roy Batty killed Tyrell by crushing his eyes, etc etc). Apparently some of the movie sequels that various people tried to get up and running over the years were based on those novels, thank gently caress they fell through. Especially as Jeter didn't realise that JF Sebastian was 1) a renamed character from DADOES and so included both versions in the first spinoff novel as different people, and 2) killed in the movie. Surprisingly, after that the second and third books turned out half decent by all accounts. A rare case of a spinoff author trying harder in response to criticism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Deakul posted:are you loving retarded like seriously It's a fine enough sci fi movie and maybe this fine enough French Canadian director will make another fine enough film in his filmography of fine enough films
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Personally I was more amused by the idea that Bladerunner is some sacred cow of art or cult movie or something It is. It's part of the broad pop culture conciousnes, frequently referenced and known if only by visuals alone, and even if not as vocalised or plenty as say a STAR WARS, the fanbase is as fervent and dedicated as any. I mean, look at the number of releases its had and try to get over whatever baffling conception you're playing to because do the math, in no reality would that occur if it weren't exactly what you said. Clearly a lot of people here aren't hip to that, myself included, but it so obviously is a landmark film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
cvnvcnv posted:It is. It's part of the broad pop culture conciousnes, frequently referenced and known if only by visuals alone, and even if not as vocalised or plenty as say a STAR WARS, the fanbase is as fervent and dedicated as any. I mean, look at the number of releases its had and try to get over whatever baffling conception you're playing to because do the math, in no reality would that occur if it weren't exactly what you said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
cvnvcnv posted:It is. It's part of the broad pop culture conciousnes, frequently referenced and known if only by visuals alone, and even if not as vocalised or plenty as say a STAR WARS, the fanbase is as fervent and dedicated as any. I mean, look at the number of releases its had and try to get over whatever baffling conception you're playing to because do the math, in no reality would that occur if it weren't exactly what you said. This is pretty spot on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:and violent crime has been dropping nationally every year since 1991. which is what he said. Depends, some places like Baltimore and yes Detroit its been going up, up, up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:Of course there's risk involved, Blade Runner was historically a bad bet from a business perspective. But it lives on beyond the red line in the accounts. Chasing that magic is just a cynical move that anybody should be able to see through by now. Yeah, you need to see the Hitchcock interviews done by Truffaut. Being down on a movie because it exists to make money ignores the reasons why movies are here in the first place, and the space afforded by creators to make something and truly new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:The original was also an attempt to grab cash. Every studio picture is. BR wasn't very successful at the outset, but I'll bet a visually stunning scifi from the Alien guy starring the Star Wars guy sounded like a golden ticket at the time. Of course directors also want to create great films within the realm of what is commercially viable. At the time it was scifi spectacles, these days sequels are the safe bet. Returning your investment or making a profit on your vision do not equate with a pejorative like 'cash grab', it would be a misuse of the term. Nobody is saying that (capital A)rt only exists in a bubble separate from commerce, and most of the history of filmmaking itself is associated on some level with the maturation of propaganda/public relations, so broad appeal and return are some of the inherent assumptions brought to the table when discussing or interacting with the medium. That being said, a lot of good art out there is divorced from commerce. Whether a forthcoming sequel to Blade Runner is eventually successful or not, it's not a 'cash grab'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:47
|
|